Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T16:18:58.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanisms of heat damage in proteins

6. The digestibility of individual amino acids in heated and propionylated proteins*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Shirley A. Varnish  and
K. J. Carpenter
Shirley A. Varnish
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DX
K. J. Carpenter
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DX
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The digestibilities of protein and amino acids have been estimated by two different techniques: the analysis of faeces (conventional method) and the analysis of ileal contents (ileal technique).

2. Freeze-dried muscle protein was found by both techniques to be almost completely digested. After autoclaving, the digestibility for the same protein was estimated by the conventional and ileal techniques to be 0.65 and 0.57 repectively.

3. Unmodified lactalbumin was found by both techniques to have a digestibility of about 0.90. Propionylation of the lactalbumin reduced digestibility to 0.82 and 0.79 as indicated by faecal analysis and ileal content analysis respectively.

4. In general, the digestibilities of individual amino acids in any one protein sample were rather uniform, and reflected over-all protein digestibility. For each amino acid, digestibility, as determined by the both methods, was lower for the modified protein than for the corresponding control protein: estimates based on ileal content analyses were consistently lower than those obtained by conventional analyses. The ileal technique was considered to be both more convenient and meaningful.

5. From the results obtained by the ileal technique it appears that reduced digestibility is an adequate explanation for the reduction found in nutritional value of the autoclaved protein. In contrast, for the propionylated protein, reduced digestibility of lysine is only a partial explanation of the low availability of this amino acid as estimated by chick growth assay.

6. In our experiments we found that the type of dietary protein used did influence the amino acid composition of the ileal contents. This was most marked with the least-digestible protein. These findings do not support the views of Nasset (1962).

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , September 1975 , pp. 339 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Bayley, H. S., Cho, C. Y. & Holmes, J. H. G. (1974). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 33, 94.Google Scholar
Bjarnason, J. & Carpenter, K. J. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjamason, J. & Carpenter, K. J. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J., McDonald, I. & Miller, W. S. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. L., Rogers, Q. R. & Harper, A. E. (1962). J. Nutr. 76, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, D. W. T. & Nesheim, M. C. (1969). J. Nutr. 99, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czamocki, J., Sibbald, I. R. & Evans, E. V. (1961). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 41, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreisbach, L. & Nasset, E. S. (1954). J. Nutr. 53, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbersdobler, H. & Riedel, G. (1972). Arch. Gefliigelk. 36, 218.Google Scholar
Geiger, E., Human, L. E. & Middleton, M. J. (1958). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 97, 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, F. W. & Anderson, D. L. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, E. A., Jacobson, W. C. & Moore, L. A. (1950). J. Nutr. 41, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclerc, J. & Benoiton, L. (1968). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 46, 471.Google Scholar
Levenson, S. L. & Tennant, B. (1963). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 22, 107.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. (1957). J. Nutr. 62, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauron, J. (1972). In International Encyclopaedia of Food and Nutrition Vol. 11, Protein and Amino Acid Functions, p. 417 [Bigwood, E. J editor]Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Mettrick, D. F. (1970). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 37, 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1967). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 18, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasset, E. S. (1962). J. Nutr. 76, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasset, E. S. & Davenport, A. (1955). J. appl. Physiol. 7, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasset, E. S. & Ganapathy, S. N. (1962). J. Nutr. 78, 241.Google Scholar
Nesheim, M. C. & Carpenter, K. J. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberne, P. M., Laerdal, O. A. & O'Dell, B. L. (1957). Poult. Sci. 36, 821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, W. L., Combs, G. F., Kifer, R. R. & Snyder, D. G. (1968). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 27, 1199.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Coates, M. E. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Fulford, R. J. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snook, J. T. (1968). J. Nutr. 94, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snook, J. T. & Meyer, J. H. (1964). In The Role of the Gastro-intestinal Tract in Protein Metabolism [Munro, H. N, editor]Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Soares, J. H. & Kifer, R. R. (1971). Poult. Sci. 50, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spande, T. F., Witkop, B., Degani, Y. & Patchornik, A. (1970). Adv. Protein Chem. 24, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varnish, S. A. & Carpenter, K. J. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 70A.Google Scholar
Varnish, S. A. & Carpenter, K. J. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar